Customer Reviews

Logic For Dummies

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If a book is informative and well-written, then it is a good book. In the world of logic, if the antecedent ("if a book is informative and well-written") is true, then the consequent ("then it is a good book") must also be true. Furthermore, for an "and" statement to be true, both of its components (informative, well-written) must individually be true. So, is Logic for Dummies by Mark Zegarelli a good book?

It is informative. After a brief overview of logic (including its history), Zegarelli gets into the meat of logic, with a particular focus on sentential and quantifier logic. Of course, these terms mean little to the novice in logic, but he gives plenty of explanation as to what both are. Both are considered forms of classical logic and reduce statements to what are essentially formulas of letters and symbols. In a way, it's like mathematics in its approach to proofs. It's not always easy to breeze through, but with patience, it all adds up. Beyond classical logic, Zegarelli also gives the reader a brief introduction into other, sometimes more exotic, forms of logic.

It is well-written. This means two things. First, Zegarelli is able to convey his information in an understandable fashion. That is not to say it is always easy to understand at first glance, but (as stated before), if you carefully follow his explanation, it makes sense. Second, it is readable. It is possible to be both informative and clear and still read dryly; Zegarelli writes with a light, occasionally humorous, tone that makes the reading much more enjoyable.

So logically, this is a good book, as the "if" part is true. Is it a great book? Not quite, which is why I'm rating it four stars and not five. Despite its generally being informative and well-written, it lacks the quality of excellence. There are times when Zegarelli could illustrate his topics better, and there are some topics (such as paradoxes and logical fallacies) that he could delve into deeper. But even if not perfect, this serves as a good introduction to the subject (as "Dummies" books often do), so if you want to learn more about logic, this book is a good place to start.

I have schlepped through the Hodges and Tarski books to teach myself basic symbolic logic, as well as the Schaum's guide for practice problems.

Why, I ask myself. Probably because I dropped college logic because I found it too confusing and the professor an obtuse windbag. Because of this act of cowardice, I have tried to make amends by learning on my own in my spare time. I also found that I enjoyed it, but it was slow-going.

While far from perfect, this is the BEST way to learn solid fundamentals in logic, I only wish it were available years ago. I would have saved lots of time and frustration.

While I thought this book was laid-out well and served as a good introduction, I was disappointed to see such a large number of errors in the book. It made me wonder if anyone had bothered to proof-read it at all. These mistakes can potentially be severely misleading to the reader unless you are alert and recognize what Zegarelli meant to say.

For example, he clearly lays out in his truth table that value for the biconditional, F <--> T is F. Yet two pages later, there is an error that states that F <--> T is T. In another spot, a parentheses is omitted which completely alters the value of the statement. In another, the statement he is evaluating contains a biconditional <--> but the sentence below the statement refers to an &-operator that isn't even in the statement! And then there's this one: he states, "But when P is true and Q is false, the statement is false", when in actuality he has completely mixed up the truth values of P and Q according to his own truth table. Needless to say, unless you already have a background in logic or are adept enough to pick up on these errors, the reader can easily be confused by these apparent contradictions.

Potential buyers should also be aware that there are a large number of references to pop-culture such as Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Lopez, and Hell's Kitchen. I'm sure Zegarelli uses these as a poor attempt at humor and to try to make readers relate to the subject-matter, but his assumptions about the knowledge and interests of his audience may not necessarily be applicable to everyone.

Despite these misgivings, the book does give a good basic refresher to the material at hand.

This book is a great introduction to Logic for anyone who has ever been intimidated by Math or by those Logic books written without verbs and nouns. Explanations are in clear English. Anyone reading it should have a good handle on the subject matter when finished. For those interested in abstruse proofs, go get a Calculus book by Addison-Wesley.

If you're a certain breed of nerd/geek (e.g., me), there's always a longing to nail down "logic" so as to better evaluate statements and arguments that one comes across in books, on blogs and webboards, etc.

In an attempt to fulfill this longing, I have purchased several introductory texts on logic in the past, which were somewhat helpful. However, I noticed gaps in the material presented in these books that made it difficult to make it all the way through. It seemed the material wasn't dumbed down enough.

Enter Logic for Dummies.

This is the most readable introductory-level book on logic I've read to date. In typical Dummies fashion, few paragraphs in the book exceed more than three or four sentences and the author is always indicating how the current material builds on what has already come and how it leads to what will eventually follow.

The focus in Logic for Dummies is sentential logic and quantifier logic - formal/symbolic logic. So if you're looking for a book on informal logic, this book is not it. You'll have to go elsewhere for that.

Despite my generally positive review, it should be pointed out that if you don't have a mathematical-oriented mind and a strong enthusiasm for the subject matter, chances are you won't make it through this book. Formal/symbolic logic is not for the faint of heart. But even so, this book may be useful as a handy reference for such folks.

This is a nice book for newcomers to logic. It reads easily. Unfortunately there are a dozen or so mistakes that may make the first time logic student confused and frustrated.

This book makes it easy to understant logic. It is a very nice way to learn. Starts simple, but in a few chapters you will find yourself thinking in a different language!

Very good book.

i have only started reading this book, but it has been very interesting, enlightening, helpful, and simple to read thus far.

Though I have not yet finished this book, I already know that it will be a useful and interesting challenge. I am reading it only for my own interest and am not in any class or group setting. The explanations are easy to understand and are straight forward. This is a new area for me but this book will make a valuable contribution to my knowledge.
KSR